update_form_settings

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says "Updates" but never states whether this is a partial patch (omitted fields preserved) or a full overwrite, whether it requires ownership/auth, whether changes are reversible, or what happens on invalid IDs. For an unannotated mutation tool this is a meaningful gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence naming the verb and the affected areas, with no filler. It is efficient, though the enumeration of fields partially duplicates the schema rather than adding new information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description should disclose mutation semantics and safety context, and it does not. The schema does document all six parameters, so the gap is behavioral rather than structural, leaving the definition only minimally viable.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so every parameter already has its own description and the baseline is 3. The description merely groups the same fields at a higher level and adds no format, default, or dependency information beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ("Updates") and resource (settings on "an existing form") and enumerates the affected fields, so the agent knows this is a mutation on a persisted form. It does not name or contrast with siblings like create_form or delete_form, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

"For an existing form" is the only usage constraint, implying the form must already exist, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives such as create_form for new forms, and no prerequisites or required permissions stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.